block

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: false) by showing mutating operations like insert and update_attribute. It does not, however, disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the operations themselves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and using a structured bullet list for operations. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the operation list is somewhat lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all primary operations and their data requirements, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema and annotations. It could be enhanced by explaining the 'include_screenshot' flag and any return values, but overall it provides a complete picture for this multi-operation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage. The description compensates by listing valid operation values and providing the expected shape of the 'data' object for each operation, though it omits the 'include_screenshot' parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's scope: block definition, insertion, and attribute management. It enumerates specific operations (list, insert, define, etc.), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like entity or layer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The list of operations effectively tells an agent when to use this tool (e.g., for block insertion or attribute updates). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-block tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.